EFF: FCC Will Likely Lose This Neutrality Case Too FCC Could Have Tackled Competition Instead You'll recall the FCC could have reclassified broadband ISPs as common carriers, thereby establishing specific authority over broadband operators. Or they could have focused on the lack of sector competition. Instead, for fear of upsetting companies like AT&T, the agency imposed fairly thin neutrality rules that don't cover a large number of things (including wireless) and may not be enforceable anyway. According to a post over at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the organization is also coming out against the FCC's new rules, and the FCC's effort to claim broad authority over broadband ISPs using Section 706 Of the Telecommunications Act: We’re wholly in favor of net neutrality in practice, but a finding of ancillary jurisdiction here would give the FCC pretty much boundless authority to regulate the Internet for whatever it sees fit. And that kind of unrestrained authority makes us nervous about follow-on initiatives like broadcast flags and indecency campaigns. In general, we think arguments that regulating the Internet is “ancillary” to some other regulatory authority that the FCC has been granted just don’t have sufficient limitations to stop bad FCC behavior in the future and create the “Trojan horse” risk we have long warned about. Meanwhile Techdirt directs us to the fact that the EFF acknowledges in a Wired interview that while neutrality is a real concern, they don't really know what the answer is at this point. Techdirt does (and it's something we've agreed with them and argued the same thing for years) -- and the answer was creating policies to improve competition in the broadband space. Competition would allow consumers to vote with their wallets should they ISP try punitive pricing or content discrimination, and would likely go much further than AT&T-lobbied, loophole-filled regulations. Of course fixing competition is something the FCC chose not to do, and now the agency and consumers have to deal with the consequences.
|
 Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Power & Concern No real concern- all made up after an SBC/ATT comment years ago! Never even made its way to becoming real. Instead everyone wanted regulation to stop it when there in fact is NO threat!
And the EFF i correct on the FCC wants broad power over something they have NO control over. the Courts need to slap the FCC again. | |
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Creating additional competition in the broadband space ?
quote:
creating additional competition in the broadband space
The gov't can't CREATE competition. All it can do is allow it to take place. Only the marketplace and investors can CREATE new competitors in an industry. If the government decides to do business in an industry, that doesn't create competition, it crushes it and drives private operators out of business.
The only active thing the government can do about competition is charge companies with legally proscribed anti-competitive actions under the law and let a court decide if they have taken place and what penalties should apply. | |
|  | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? and i've been saying all along The Gov't- regardless if its local, state or federal has NO right butting into ANY business where there is a private business already there. It will do nothing but create harm to the public by more debt to pay off when it falls or if the actual Incmb. wanted to just pull out and say screw it all. jobs would be loss and no way in hell could the locals keep up a system and build out as quickly to cover the whole city.
And with that- the incmb. would NOT have to sell their network to the locals NOR leave it in tack they could take it down and scrap it. | |
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? said by hottboiinnc:and i've been saying all along The Gov't- regardless if its local, state or federal has NO right butting into ANY business where there is a private business already there. It will do nothing but create harm to the public by more debt to pay off when it falls or if the actual Incmb. wanted to just pull out and say screw it all. jobs would be loss and no way in hell could the locals keep up a system and build out as quickly to cover the whole city.
And with that- the incmb. would NOT have to sell their network to the locals NOR leave it in tack they could take it down and scrap it.
I love free market peole. They asusme ther is actually a free market. Once again if there was a free market you'd might have a point. I find it currious you are against the government making laws that foster competition but you are for companies like at&t, verizon and Comcast lobbying for laws that STIFFLE it. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? the gov't has NO right getting into business. that is NOT their job. If it was their job- we would NOT have private utility companies. INSTEAD every city would own their own electric, gas and water company and MORE Co-Ops would be here instead of Companies like ATT and Frontier/VZ.
And yes we do have a free market; you are able to go out and start any company you want; and open a business. Is it my fault or the gov'ts fault that you won't? Instead you'll just comment on how you find it basically funny that people like me are against the Munis and other gov'ts for getting into the business of being a telephone or cable TV provider. But I'm sure that if Camden, TN decided they were going to SPEND YOUR tax money and create an network but NEVER include you're home into the mix of coverage area- you would be pissed off as well. You'd be on here slamming them just like you do to every other company that refuses to service you're address for what ever service they offer.
And just to let you know; ALL COMPANIES lobby for laws they want. NO company steps to the side and lets the gov't do what they want. Hell look at KP. They have their companies so far apart and not "connected" that they're able to lobby for one thing - the good---and then come along and lobby against it- why!? Because that is WHAT COMPANIES DO!
If you want competition; start it. do wholesale DSL, become a WISP in your neighborhood. create your own FTTH network for your neighborhood, try to bring in another company that will build a network. The more and more people you get connecting the major providers helps when it comes down to when they decide to expand. Especially with Over-Builder cable companies. | |
| | | | | kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? I agree with free market principals and your argument up to a point. But the telecommunications sector is not representative or a shining example of free market possibilities.
This industry is begging for oversight, but don't worry, they will still write the rules.
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.ostjournal.net | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? The industry is NOT begging for oversight. That is what Dereg stopped. If you want to compete- then start your own company. There are many ways that you can do it and not even lay any wires. VoIP with your own full wireless network? Can even offer HSI over the link. And if you're good. you can do CaTV as well. and the CaTV will never even touch the Internet but be IP based. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? However, some utilities ARE owned by governments, city water and sewage come immediately to mind. Yes, they could be privately owned (in some rural areas they are), and could be subject to competition, driving down you're water bill. However, the capital costs for a new entrant into this field (if no main supply sharing is in place a startup would have to install all new distribution infrastructure, plus the new meter and pipe into each customer for example) and the margins available from this type of service make a new commercial entrant into this field prohibitively expensive. As a result, regulation is the only way to ensure monopolist abuses don't occur. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? the fact these utilities were CREATED WELL before private companies wanted to even service those areas; and most likely still would NOT want to service them today. As in some rural areas- try a good share of the country has private utilities now. American Water comes to mind as one of the larger private water companies. Competition does NOT drive down bills. It only creates 1 problem- one company going out of business due to not being able to compete.
And regulation is NOT the only way to ensure monopolist abuses are stopped. The fact is Regulation only HURTS the consumer as now taxes are added to the product below the prices which drive the price up even higher than what it was before. | |
|
| | |  Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | said by BF69:said by hottboiinnc:and i've been saying all along The Gov't- regardless if its local, state or federal has NO right butting into ANY business where there is a private business already there. It will do nothing but create harm to the public by more debt to pay off when it falls or if the actual Incmb. wanted to just pull out and say screw it all. jobs would be loss and no way in hell could the locals keep up a system and build out as quickly to cover the whole city.
And with that- the incmb. would NOT have to sell their network to the locals NOR leave it in tack they could take it down and scrap it.
I love free market peole. They asusme ther is actually a free market. Once again if there was a free market you'd might have a point. I find it currious you are against the government making laws that foster competition but you are for companies like at&t, verizon and Comcast lobbying for laws that STIFFLE it. I wanted to add that if companies would quit leaving people at 1.5 or quit leaving people high and dry without good broadband, I would support NOT having govt. getting into the broadband business. However, I will support govt. backed broadband (municipal broadband) when a company refuses to expand or upgrade. In too many cities incumbents have refused to do some quality upgrades leaving people on very slow speeds and yet fought tooth and nail against municipal broadband that would've brought good broadband at a reasonable price. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? And what happens when those ventures by the Gov't folds? who is going to pay for that mess? YOU! Because I be damned if I'll stand by and let MY tax money be used for some shit as that. They have better things to do with my money; ensuring the Fire Department has the proper equipment and the trucks are up to date and not more than 5 years old. Ensuring that all EMS crews are current on education and those rigs are also current- no more than 5-8 years old. Ensuring the Fire Department itself is HazMat certified and also keeping up education and training outside of real life fires.
The city also has the job of doing the same with Police and streets. And ensuring that I and my neighbors are kept safe. by spending tax money by being a business (that is NEVER allowed to even break even of turn a profit) is NOT one of their functions as a city. When that happens the Residents and businesses need to step in and start cleaning house with who ever is running the City. Protect and Serve does NOT give you the right to free/deep discounted CaTV NOR HSI or phone.
Internet and CaTV is NOT a utility in the United States. it is a RIGHT and does NOT have to be met nor upgraded like you feel. And if you feel that you need higher speeds- call your local ISP and buy business class because its always available at faster speeds and always FTTH is available. | |
|
|  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | said by Romney2012:The gov't can't CREATE competition. All it can do is allow it to take place. Only the marketplace and investors can CREATE new competitors in an industry. If the government decides to do business in an industry, that doesn't create competition, it crushes it and drives private operators out of business. Sure they can. Before Canada fell into regulatory capture, the CRTC mandated access to Bell's network, creating competition by allowing new competitors to enter the market with minimal investment. It's true that these new competitors only represent 6% of the market, but that's for a few reasons:
1) None of the new competitors have yet reached a size to be able to advertise enough to make a real breakthrough. They're starting to get there, though, with one of the larger independents having started taking tentative steps into television commercials, as well as taking out a multitude of billboards in major cities.
2) The previously mentioned regulatory capture has put the kibosh on the original plan. At this moment, Bell throttles the competition, is trying to apply their retail caps to the competition, and prevents the competition from accessing anything but 6+ year old speeds.
I'm not entirely convinced that net neutrality is something that needs to be mandated, because it should naturally arise out of a vibrantly competitive market. If one provider should choose to restrict something that goes against the concept of net neutrality, there would undoubtedly be another company that is perfectly willing to sell you unfettered access. That new company will get your business, which punishes the original company for not being neutral.
Of course, we don't really have that kind of competition anywhere in North America...
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org | |
| | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? and if the ISPs wanted access to those speeds that are current- then they need to do something about it. 1 ban together and create a massive company or 2 start building out using something other than 3rd party sharing and relying on the actual org. company. Regardless if they are there because the Gov't created them. It's a matter of that Bell has created that new network out of their own $$$ NOT out of the tax payer money. The same goes with what ATT and VZ did here in the States. They paid for it- they use it. If TekSavvy or another wants to use those new networks; then they need to pay for it. | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? I'd be happy to pay for it. But ATT and VZ will not sell access to their high speed last mile loops to other ISPs. I can't purchase something to compete with if it's not offered for sale to me. | |
| | | | | GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? It's the same here. It's economically unfeasible to build a "third wire" to Canadian homes. It would cost billions and billions of dollars, and with foreign investment laws, nobody has the money to do this but the incumbents, nor can anybody get the money to do it. This is besides the fact that Canadians would not be willing to accept a third wire unless it was fibre, because why would you want multiple cable lines going to your home?
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? then you Canadians; made your own bed by not wanting another provider- you lay in it. The fact is you don't need every line going to your home. If you don't want 1 provider you don't sign up you won't have a line coming to your home. Also if you change providers- you can have the old one remove its line to your home or do it yourself. It's that easy. So the whole thing about not being options; is moot. There always are options. And the only people that would only want fiber are the people on BBR. More than 80% of people that use the Internet don't know if its FTTH, DSL, or Cable. They just know they have a "server". | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| can do- DSL is sold. And you can use 3rd party companies to do that. DSLX is one of them; Ikano. T will accept anyone to use their old DSL network to compete- although you will NEVER have access to U-Verse nor FiOS with VZ.
Also why keep being nothing but a leach to the actual provider BUILD OUT YOUR OWN NETWORK! some day you won't be able to resell and you'll be SOL like Earthlink and be stuck. and in the USA (and in Canada) Wireless does work to service customers; so don't say that isn't an option; because it clearly is. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? said by hottboiinnc:you will NEVER have access to U-Verse nor FiOS with VZ. Yep, VZ & ATT do not sell wholesale access to fiber last-mile loops. Exactly my point.
And thanks for the tip about wireless. I do have several hundred customers using it already. Ever try streaming HD video over point-to-multipoint 5.8G? I thought not. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Creating additional competition in the broadband space ? and ATT should NOT be required to sell you access to that U-Verse network. YOU did NOT spend a DIME building it; THEY did. When you spend the $$$ to build out something like that; you'd protect it too. It's called BUSINESS! And since when is ATT a PA provider?  Frontier is the PA provider.
And steaming video over Wireless does work. You may need a new solution and they are out there. | |
|
| | | The government in theory is for the public good, and since we don't live in a purely capitalist society, there needs to be equalizers. Tariffs and the like are an bad example, however the end result is that the cost is passed onto the end user.
We could pretty much be done with this whole public/private mess by being smart about it, and have the "last mile" a public utility, and perhaps a POP, and after that ANY provider can compete.
So imagine I could eliminate the redundant $300 or so in USF I pay each year, and every household in the US could get fibre to the home. Once you have that, cable, phone, internet are all now on a level playing field. Nobody says this, but in America Verizon FIOS isn't wiring poor neighborhoods (why would it in a capitalist market), and in fact is finding it more profitable to pour money into LTE to soak mobile users. So there is discrimination or information going on there.
In any case the gov could always contract the build out, or privatize the operations.
It is BY far more expensive to run power or water/sewage to a house, and almost everyone has that by default. America needs to stand up and put information on par with power (electricity, not bombs), because in 20 years if we don't we will be a true 3rd world country.
A fibre run has enough bandwidth to last 100 years, or at least longer than copper and it is protocol or provider independent.
For those who contend it doesn't work it does already. In New York, I have the public utility provide the "last mile" (you get the drift if not fully accurate), and I can choose the supplier for gas or electricity and change them at a whim. Guess what, I use small third party green providers who don't burn coal (at my choice and marginally greater cost), which I would never have had under the old regime.
You could bet that service, price, and quality would go up in a second and irritating things like caps and cable bundling would evaporate without ever having to pen a new law. LAWS INCREASE COST, IT IS A FACT. Go watch Beer Wars if you want to see how laws can distort the "free market". So you will have flame outs, but eventually good regional providers will emerge to battle the big guys, and they many actually employ people in your area and not hired 1099 guns who could care less about your community or a long term relationship with the customer.
So in the end, the government CAN create competition, by utilizing the public good to level the playing field for a company without enormous start up costs.
The free market capitalists think that just having competition is sufficient. In capital intensive industries, that is simply not enough, and by amortizing a public good can be more efficient than every yo yo running a redundant cable (which is less efficient) to your house. The incumbents didn't start with a "free market", they either had laws, subsidies, or favor with politicians to get their start at one time too.
I mean I have a copper Verizon terminal, a Verizon ONT, and a Cable terminal at my house. It that efficient?? | |
|
| | Telecoms Competition 100 Years Ago In the olden days they had competition - see the attachment.
Good luck fighting off the government and lawyers today. | |
| | | | Re: Telecoms Competition 100 Years Ago the Gov't can be fought off- The FCC over steps is boundaries ALL the time. It's just a matter of time until their actually sued for $$$ and left broke. | |
|
| | lack of competition? I have trouble understanding this whine about a lack of competition. It comes across as an a priori presumption.
There are at least six media most of which have more than one provider available to me to choose how I will obtain I'net access. This is not in a big city, either but rather far out in the suburbs.
What I do see is that folks complaining about a lack of competition seem to be complaining about not getting a fast enough connection where they want it at a price they like. That is disingenuous and tends to destroy the validity of their POV.
I am sitting in a fairly common situation here in the U.S. with a plethora of options on the one hand and a bunch of folks telling me I don't have any options on the other. Who do I believe? Them or my lying eyes? How can I resolve the dissonance? | |
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: lack of competition? Nope not problems with what your seeing. It's the fact that its a made up issue that people want you to believe. It's mostly an issue here on BBR about the whole lack of competition because people want dirt cheap and or basically free Internet connections that they are free to do what ever and when ever they want; but they also want support and the fastest connection possible- but keep in mind- they want it cheap.
Nobody in their right mind will offer this kind of service. most areas in the United States have cable and DSL available. They also are now having access to WiMax, LTE, and other Cellular type connections that are faster - never mind that 3G has always been available as well. People don't want those though. As those methods are not "true" internet connections. | |
| | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: lack of competition? said by hottboiinnc:It's mostly an issue here on BBR about the whole lack of competition because people want dirt cheap and or basically free Internet connections that they are free to do what ever and when ever they want; but they also want support and the fastest connection possible- but keep in mind- they want it cheap.
You are exactly right that the situation is vastly blown out of proportion by people thinking they deserve the same speeds and pricing as other countries with MUCH higher population densities, or where it has been heavily subsidized by the government and they don't realize that what they are saving on the monthly bill is made up for through their taxes. Like you said, they think they should get super fast speeds for dirt cheap prices. It's what I call the "entitlement attitude" that a good portion of the country has been brainwashed with. People think they deserve certain speeds or prices. I'm also getting pretty sick of the "I made bad choices so I deserve a bailout!" crap.
I do run a small ISP, and I will be the first to admit that the lack of competition is a real problem with much of the country. There have been plenty of cases where new ISP's tried to startup but failed due to the monopoly draining their funds by dragging them to court. That is the first area the government could get involved with to promote competition. Another is making it easier to obtain middle mile backhaul from existing resources. And yet another would be easing the permit process for public right of ways for providers to build a last mile network.
I am supportive of regulation that encourages new competition, but I am not supportive of regulation that forces businesses to operate by standards the government thinks they are qualified to set. Net Neutrality really does nothing to fix any of the problems and are a temporary band-aid at best. While regulation like NN sounds good to consumers, they fail to realize how the regulation will cost them more in the long run because it not only drives up the costs for the ISP, but it drives up the cost of government oversight, so people pay for it both on their ISP bills and through their taxes. | |
| | | | | | Re: lack of competition? fcc like the atf . they do stupid crap for no reason half the time | |
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Many states have new regulation to help companies get into the ROW- the fact is many ISPs and companies REFUSE to get into that. In Ohio anyone wishing to pay $2,000 to the state Dept. of Com. filing the paper work they want, etc can get approved to use the ROW and be done and start building out. Ohio has seen MANY new cable companies pop up with the new law. Many service the same areas- 3 and 4 companies in the same city! Talk about the law actually working!
You are correct- NN does nothing but create something that is BS and will always be. But when regulation and laws are created by Congress and it ends up worse with higher bills, etc people will want it the back to the way it was before. But Oh well! they should have thought about that before- Comcast's cap comes to mind with that. | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | Alphabet soup mixup? Isn't competition and FTC job? | |
| | | New rules What a lot of people don't even think about and see is this also.. As soon as the FCC passed NN, all the big players started to change their policies. Your large companies now have "rules" that actually say they can do X,Y, and Z. They now have loop-holes that they can get away with.
More and more companies are going to metered usage for customer connections. Cell phone companies are deploying different tiers of service. BUT, notice this wasn't really happening before NN. Any one who agrees with NN and it's current "policy" has no idea of it's long term effects.
Make no mistake, you will pay (via your wallet) someway, somehow for your greedy nature to get anything you want for little cost "right-now".. Keep asking for free stuff. You will eventually be "owned" by the very government that you asked for help from.
I own a small WISP. There is NO, Zero, Zilch, way that the federal, or state government has any idea how to run my business. And I can assure you they couldn't do what I do for less then 100 times the money I have invested in it. But by all means enjoy getting taxed to death. Keep voting in these people who like giving you things. Nothing in life is free!! | |
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: New rules The fact is the FCC's NN policies/Rules are not even enforceable. they have NO oversight on the Internet and they damn well know that. They need to be slapped so hard it makes the President spin. If companies started suing the FCC for money they'd wake up when those fines started coming out of their budget and they couldn't spend money on stupid "rules and regulation" they try to draft and make the American people happy.
But that's what happens when you get someone in Charge that doesn't know shit nor knows what he has control over. | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Yeah they probably will lose But the reclassification of broandband services was a non-starter in any case, saying "why didn't they do that instead" is silly. It's a case of be careful what you wish for - if they tried that Congress would have shut it down and there'd be no net neutrality rules at all. | |
|
| |
|
|
